Let's talk about Race

I'll take the time to thank Gatewood in advance for posting that video, alas that wasn't the comment he made that spurred my specific change to Nationalism from Liberalism. But it does show that he's made such comments on many occasions.

[video=youtube;Xece-D_Wru4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xece-D_Wru4[/video]

I'm not exactly sure if this is the segment in question but it's around the same time frame(2009). I'll take the slight OT moment to laugh at Chris Matthews with his howling of the POTUS showing his long-form BC. Is he so utterly unaware of our history and how the Founders despised dual-citizenship? I assure him that every POTUS before Obama and every one after him will prove their qualifications to be vetted.

Back to the point: Of all things to contest me with, why my reasoning for my choice of Nationalism? What point did that have in the racial discussions? Furthermore, why the insulation that Whites couldn't operate against their own interests?

What if I told you that in response to the Rodney King riots(as well as the NY riots of the mid-60's) that "White America" is politically brain dead. That's right, along with the "multicultural era" came the political assassination of Whites in the US. If one were to reference the 10th Amendment, which allocates all power not woven into Law to the States or to the People, one is so called a racist!

Yet, there are problems with this false interpretation: 1) If so, why hadn't the 10th Amendment been strucken down? 2) Why is it the States who primarily pour money into Education? If a State is insolvent, it shouldn't have that responsibility yet the Liberal-Federal Government forces this responsibility on the States.

In my opinion, either we are to return to the responsibility of Individual States, or the Fed. Government is to assume all financial costs and responsibilities. No more half-assing it.

And it's not so much a conspiracy as it is a fact: How many times from 2010-onward has the media speculated during tragedies: Of our enemies abroad? No! Of the Tea Party! At this point, a lynching in which they confess: There may be no more evidence of racism from the TP than by any other group but we must make it appear so! How insulting of a Nations's fabric! What a rise in Tensions!

Making matters worse are those Americans whom collectively put their heads in the sand and cry out "There's no bias, there's no discrimination!" When in this very forum, we're accused of "privilege" for simply existing. How can you say with a straight face that I'm not being racially mistreated?

Further from equality, as Affirmative action shows the world Liberalism merely intended to reverse the "table" of rights. We've made multitudes of sacrifices, and there's nothing of present which suggests our lack of willingness to do so in the future. However, there's a question left unanswered:

What rights must Whites give up in order to throw off the shackles of privilege? At the behest of this, is our 'privilege' of being a European-English State. So this gets to the heart of the matter: Are we the next Native Americans? That seems to be Liberal America's end game, the very literal elimination of all European-English People in America. Then and only then, when we meet the fate of Native Americans are we equal!

Or perhaps they'll stop a little short: They'll find a way to say domestic slavery only applies to Whites and as long as minorities aren't affected we can be whipped and chained. Then, we'll be equal!

Now then with due respect, I'll rest in regards to White-European standing in America and will now address your concerns regarding Race from a biological standpoint. First off, on your genome mapping it would appear that European-Americans share mapping with the other European-Eurasian Peoples(including Russia and Israel("Ashkenazim") Does this not show that the Peoples share genetic coding?

One could say that Race should be socially irrelevant, but to deny race's cultural and political impact is to deny their rights to exist! You can call it "psudeoscience" if you'd like, before doing so however I want to again state for the record that it's your map which links European-Americans with others in the general European-Eurasian grouping.

I'd also, though this is semantics disagree with the paper's outlining that Sub-Saharans are the closest, it neglects the groupings to the right of European-Americans.

The Khantis are Russian, then after that you have the Asian Peoples. The very hint exists in the word Caucasian.

The World was ordered and constructed, as for who/what did the constructing, I'm not qualified to say. But we didn't deviate too far from our origins, otherwise the connection between Europeans-Asians wouldn't be prevalent.


The debate is between these two points: Whether one is of the opinion that it's a Social Construct, or if it's a rational component to our lives. But I submit to you a question: If it's a Social Construct, how'd we come up with it? If one entertains Evolutionary Theory for a moment, if our ancestors were genetically primates it's entirely possible that the Construct of the Animal Kingdom was sub-consciously embedded in our ancestors and thereby us as well.

Is the Animal Kingdom itself invalid? Not at all, the only thing that invalidates the Construct among humans is our single-lineage. Indeed, Human Construct is biologically recognized in that we share the same bodily limbs. And yet, failed transplants serve as a fresh reminder that we're not completely alike.

 

Your post is biased. You talk about fairness while at the same time lobbing criticisms and rebukes at "the left" and claiming White people are under some desperate attack by...other white liberals? Surely you don't mean impoverished Black people are threatening White people?

My twenty cents...racism is and probably always will be present, as well as sexism, classism, etc.

Trying to claim that White people are being abused in a nation they dominate is just utterly ridiculous. That liberals, who are also White, are racist against other Whites? Does this sound logical? White people are being besieged? they live in fear and persecuation of the Black man keeping them down?

Yeah, the media hypes up every racey issue because it can whip up anger in an impoverished and oppressed people who are quick to react as soon as they can because the story touches on a day-to-day reality for them. But, hey. That media? It's owned by White people, not Black people. They make the profit at others expense. It does not signify that the nation is geared towards Black people, obviously. Look at Detroit. We can go across the ocean to bomb other brown people to "save them" but we let an entire city fester?

You're criticism doesn't add up. I can only say that there is a tendency in the media to patronize Black rage at any opportunity, but aside from that, the Liberal attack on White people is paper thin.

 

It's dog whistle style weasel wording. No leftwinger worth his or her quiche is in any doubt as to what Matthews really means by such statement and in fact they seldom waste time informing political forums. But because he is using leftwing code for his accusations it's always possible for the Left to excuse him . . . hmmmm . . . as in this case.

 

This video doesn't support your claim that Chris Matthews thinks any criticism of Obama is automatically racist.

Here he's talking about the Birther movement, Impeachment and all of these other far-right extremist attacks on Obama being motivated by racism. Personally I agree with him. There is a racist motivation to some of the Obama attacks it's just more covert than traditional racism which is what Chris Matthews is implying.

Obama was vetted by the proper authorities. What Chris Matthews is talking about is the public humiliation Obama has endured in order to show his long form birth certificate before the whole world because of the crazy conspiracy theories of conservatives who believe that he was born in Kenya and all of this other nonsense. These people do not understand the history of natural-born citizenship and just wanted to oust Obama based on a technicality that he might be foreign born. In reality Obama is a natural-born citizen and has been since birth. He was born in Hawaii. He shouldn't have to prove to the public that he was born where he was vs. someplace else. Even today you still have right-wing crazies claiming Obama's papers are fake and that he was born in Kenya (with no evidence).

Don't even get me started on the dual citizenship claim.

There is obviously genetic closeness between certain populations. Calling those populations races however mandates that they fit the criteria for racial classification which is explained in the article I linked to.

No one is denying that the concept of race has had a cultural and political impact on the societies that employ it but it is a social construct rather than a biological reality.

What I'm calling pseudoscience is the claim that there are psychological or cognitive differences between races which I believe was the direction you were going in with your comment. Such ideas fall under the category of Scientific Racism and have been dismissed by the scientific community as pseudoscience.

The word Caucasian is in reference to the people of the Caucasus Mountain region. It has nothing to do with Asians.

As for Sub-Saharan Africans, Graves said that the group closet to them are Europeans rather than more phenotypically similar groups in Australia and Micronesia, showing that physical traits don't always mirror genetic relationships.

The concept of race developed out of the age of exploration when Europeans encountered people of different continents and assumed that the diverse cultures they met were inextricably linked to the physical differences they saw between these different people and themselves. Race was socially constructed when the first racialists decided to make race a category of human societies like class and gender.

Failed organ transplants are linked to blood type not race.

 

So political idiocy is something you are now attributing to the white race?

Even if true, it could not have happened without their cooperation, since white people have been a majority since this country's founding. So, once again, the fault lies with white people...not blacks or jews or anyone else.

...which everyone knows is fiction. This bait and switch tactic is common on this forum from racists. But non-racists always see right through it.

Lots of non-racists are states rights advocates.

Because the vast majority of people who are the same race as you (even in this forum) are not claiming mistreatment. Thats why.

Another example of what I stated above...by "whites" you mean "white racists". Normal white people are not the ones complaining. "Whites" and "white racists" are not the same thing. One is a subgroup of the other.

Lets see what mainstream science has to say.

DNA evidence runs counter to your assumptions. Sorry.

No it is not. This is yet another example of you projecting opinion as if it were objective fact. And it's not.

No one is demanding you breed outside your race. There is no law telling you to do that. No one is holding a gun to your head. If you only want to breed with white people, you have the government's blessing. You keep inventing "oppression" that does not exist, and that is why non-racists will never take you seriously.

No it is not. What is the point of your appendix? Why do dolphins not breathe water? If the world was "constructed" it was constructed very haphazardly.

The world is a chaotic environment to which various living things have adapted via evolution. Nothing was "constructed".

Failed transplants are not racially correlated...it is entirely possible a given black donor is more compatible with your biology than a given white donor. See the wikipedia quote above.

 

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78781&page=4

 

Why don't you address the link directly instead of linking to other message boards?

 

I don't really have time to repeat myself. Anyone interested, which I imagine is nobody, can follow the link and see the refutation of your copy paste.

 

finnish is a Uralic language it is not related to english and german, which are "Germanic" languages very closely related....and none of those three are roman or greek...

do you do pull facts out of your butt as needed? Japanese is not in any way related to chinese, they have nothing in common...japanese is an altaic language, related to korean, mongolian and turkic...chinese is from sino-thai language family....

 

Yes, do you have a problem with it? PS. Feminist policies are also destructive for women. Babies literally crap themselves. Apart from breaking the law, drunk drivers kill themselves! It's as if your of the opinion that self-destructive behaviors don't exist. Well, I hate to tell you this but they do in fact exist!

I thought I specifically told you not to address me until you became competent. Here's a hint: That day isn't today. I've never once denied that it was the self-sabotage of White Americans, I even gave you the history lesson behind it. Here's a glorious little nugget: Look over this forum post, there's not a single post about blacks or Jews, except for you my mentally challenged nuisance.

What's truly sadistic is the extent of your 'intelligence'. I can't believe we'll have to go over this with you, but I will in the hopes that you'll think before you type.

The Ivy League *should* suffice for you It does exist, whether you like it or not. The 'vagueness' of the 10th allowed the Federal Government to take liberties, but even these are limited in scope.

More reading.

If you're uninterested in reading, I'll TLDR it for you: The 10th Amendment is what keeps us from being a figurative monarchy.

Or you haven't been paying attention(far more likely) 45% of Whites think we're headed in the wrong direction

That's a pretty significant number, if we were liberal, I'd include those with mjxed views to get a 52/48 split. Still want to duck your head in the sand and say there's "nothing there"?

A question cannot be an example of anything, you blithering idiot. As towards your stupid statement: Define "Normal White People". In a way, I'm looking forward to and cringing from what'll be your answer. And how could you possibly claim a 'subgroup' of people when you deny a racial construct?

Without that construct, subgroups don't exist.

[video=youtube;O4Ccfpwc6bg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Ccfpwc6bg[/video]

I feel the need to do this until it sinks in. For starters, the poster I was replying to conceded the European-Eurasian connection, that's for starters. Secondly, it says 'physical variations' suffice to say that it doesn't disprove a shared genetic pool(infact, the pool's so shared as a major part of your thesis). Hell, third: Science agrees that interracial breeding occurred in overlapping centuries. If so, it means that we'll never trace back to an original mapping of the races as we know them.

(And no, just because we all originated in Africa doesn't mean we're all Africans. The genetic makeup of our ancestors and our present era couldn't be anymore different)The DNA Evolution concept, give it a read.

All we know is that it started in Africa, not the biological construct during or immediately after the initial stages of Human development.

Now I know why you're a sadist, I can't be the only one who's utterly annoyed by you. I read a map, you also had access to the same map! My assumptions were drawn through clearly presented evidence.

Look, jumping from biology to sociology is a HUGE challenge, all the moreso when you're a self-presumptuous moron. You're right, there's no law against who I can date. But that's not what I'm referring to(nor anyone else). What we reference to, is when Law Enforcement is spat on and we're essentially supposed to accept a lawless state.

If a White Supremacist were to attack an African-American, it'd rightly be charged a hate crime. But flip the script, and it'd be up to the " State attorney"(IE: It'll be suppressed.) For the love of all holy, even females get better treatment by the law!

And not a day goes by without some cry of abuse or mistreatment. Even though we apathetically agree to open borders. And it befuddles me how one could even believe in "White Privilege" while claiming he doesn't believe in races. "White Privilege" is to Whites what the (N word) was to Blacks.

Degrading, disrespectful and malicious

If you're going to make a habit of replying to me as an idiot, could you refrain from making your paragraphs overly long? Because frankly, I wish I could zip through it but that'd be intellectually lazy.

Chaos Theory: More reading for you. I'll even dumb it down in simplistic terms: Imperfect Information. We may not know why the appendix exists, but we know that in fact it exists. So, if you can take a tiny leap of faith, we can assume it once had meaning. If you manage to hold onto that, you can take it a step further: If it had meaning, chances are it still has meaning.

As for why Dolphins can't breath water, that's even easier. We're both mammals, what Homo Sapiens can't do how could a dolphin do it?



The world is a chaotic environment to which various living things have adapted via evolution. Nothing was "constructed".

**Sigh** No one ever said anything about them being racially correlated. Just that they were examples of biological differences between people.

This chart notes the various differences in blood types among groups of people.

You want to believe we're not genetically different, that's your prerogative. But it's not reality. The genetic variation is real, the different social outlooks are real. You can either choose to be an insolent crybaby or accept reality

 

They were passed down from the Romans/Greeks(the first ones who crafted it though, were the Semitic Peoples of the Far East)

Generally speaking, the alphabetic lineage which differs from continent to continent are far too tedious to graph out and the people in this particular thread are unworthy of that effort. Will you settle for a TLDR statement that the alphabet is largely Semitic/European in nature?

Well, you have no choice but to accept that statement, I'm not mapping it out for everyone. I assure you, I am aware of the map itself though.

No, do you? So much for your "not at all" related theorem

 

oh my...

The characters of written language are not the same as the spoken word, sharing common written characters does not indicate the languages are intelligibile to one another or even related, my chinese wife understands not a word of japanese despite your silly claims they are "virtually the same language" ,
Language origin is not indicated by the written version but by the spoken word, japanese is northern asian in origin, chinese is southern asian in origin about as similar as italian and arabic are..

 

Definitely not. It's just kind of weird that you are applying negative traits like this to the white race. Most racists don't do that.

I guess it really sucks for you that you're not a moderator huh?

So if white people only have themselves to blame, how can you hope to correct it? They would have to embrace your ideology for any change to take place, and they are clearly not interested in doing that.

I really do seem to be pressing a lot of your buttons. And I am doing it without even insulting you. It's a good thing for you I am not a crybaby who runs to the moderators every time someone insults me, eh?

Because it is context-specific. It's not objective...I am using what I am assuming is your own definition of white people.

There are no traits specific to people of euro descent.

Science agrees only that populations interbred. And uses this as evidence that clearly demarcated and unambiguous populations of humans do not exist.

According to who? The mainstream scientists I quoted do not agree.

You're not. I have annoyed many racists on here over the years. Usually they get frustrated and run back to Stormfront after a few months of this.

Gee, you don't say.

It's not lawless. It's just laws you don't agree with. Thats how democracy works. Sorry. You're not a majority, and therefore do not have the right to impose your own laws on anyone.

And um...the people enacting those laws you hate are mostly white. Just sayin.

It is an example that dolphins were not "constructed"...they evolved. I think we can agree it would be pretty pointless to design an aquatic creature that breathes air.

We are genetically different. Just not along racial lines.

 

We sure are. Thank you.

 

No we are not "all from Africa" and that is PC garbage. Simians evlved in Eurasia and Sapiens evolved in the Eurasian ecozone, either North Africa or the Near East/Caucasus. They then moved into Europe mixing with the ancient Neanderthal to create modern Eurasians and SS Africa mixing with Rhodesiensis to create Negroids.

 

What you write is garbage and non-overlaping races defined by genotypic similarity exist by definition.

You seem to take great joy in "annoying racists". It's a pity you don't take joy in logic and the truth.

 

Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa and migrated to other continents. Any cross-breeding with archaic humans was miniscule.

 

Either North Africa or the Near East/Caucasus. Non-SS Africans hold up to 4% Neanderthal DNA.

 

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120726/NEWS02/707269844

Early Africans mated with mystery species of humans


The human family tree just got another -- mysterious -- branch, an African "sister species" to the heavy-browed Neanderthals that once roamed Europe.

While no fossilized bones have been found from these enigmatic people, they did leave a calling card in present-day Africans: snippets of foreign DNA.

There's only way one that genetic material could have made it into modern human populations.

"Geneticists like euphemisms, but we're talking about sex," said Joshua Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle, whose lab identified the foreign DNA in three groups of modern Africans.

These genetic leftovers do not resemble DNA from any modern-day humans. The foreign DNA also does not resemble Neanderthal DNA, which shows up in the DNA of some modern-day Europeans, Akey said. That means the newly identified DNA came from an unknown group.

"We're calling this a Neanderthal sibling species in Africa," Akey said. He added that the interbreeding likely occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after some modern humans had walked out of Africa to colonize Asia and Europe, and around the same time Neanderthals were waning in Europe.

Akey said that present-day Europeans show no evidence of the foreign DNA, meaning the mystery people were likely confined to Africa.

The find offers more evidence that for thousands of years, modern-looking humans shared the Earth with evolutionary cousins that later died out. And whenever the groups met, they did what came naturally -- they bred.

The once controversial idea that humans mated with other species is now widely accepted among scientists. In fact, hominid hanky-panky seems to have occurred wherever humans met others who looked kind of like them.

In 2010, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced finding Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of modern Europeans.

Heavy-set people whose thick double brows, broad noses, and flat faces set them apart from modern humans, Neanderthals disappeared around 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Another mysterious group of extinct people recently identified from a finger bone in Siberia -- known as the Denisovans -- also left some of their DNA in modern day Pacific Islanders.

And while modern humans and the newly found "archaic" Africans might be classified as distinct species, they managed to produce viable offspring. Likewise, donkeys and horses, lions and tigers, and whales and dolphins can mate and make babies.

"They had to be similar enough in appearance to anatomically modern humans that reproduction would happen," said Akey. But with no fossils in hand, it's impossible to say what these people looked like. It's also impossible to say whether the matings were consensual or forced.

But one thing is clear: This enigmatic group left their DNA all across Africa. The researchers found it in the forest-dwelling pygmies of central Africa and in two groups of hunter-gatherers on the other side of the continent -- the Hadza and Sandawe people of Tanzania.

Starting a decade ago, a team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania drew blood from five individuals in each of the three groups. Using the latest genetic technology, Tishkoff spent $150,000 to read, or sequence, the DNA of these 15 people.

Besides finding evidence of the now-extinct species, the team discovered a huge range of genetic diversity between the three groups. The human genome contains about three billions letters, or base pairs, of DNA. Before this study, scientists had found that some 40 million of these letters vary across human populations.

But in the 15 Africans, Tishkoff found another three million genetic variants - a huge trove of human diversity. Among this stunning variety, Tishkoff says she has pinpointed some of the genes responsible for the short stature of the pygmies, who average less than five feet in height. She also found that immune system genes and genes for taste and smell varied wildly between the three groups -- confirming Africa as the seat of the most human diversity.

The research was reported Wednesday in the journal Cell.

"This is very cutting-edge population genetics work," said geneticist Spencer Wells, a National Geographic explorer. "This 'whole genome' analysis the team performed is really revolutionizing our understanding of human history. It's an exciting time to be in the field, but it's difficult to interpret all the new data."

Wells said the oldest modern human skull, found in Ethiopia, dates to 195,000 years ago. For more than 150,000 years, then, humans shared the planet with cousin species.

Despite all the amorous advances, though, only one group survived -- us.

Akey said: "As we were conquering the world, we also conquered similar human populations that were dying out."

 

What's your source? It's well-established that homo sapiens evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa, likely in East Africa around Kenya and Ethiopia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] There are differing theories on whether there was a single exodus or several. A multiple dispersal model involves the Southern Dispersal theory,[10] which has gained support in recent years from genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence.

Sources:

5. Liu H, Prugnolle F, Manica A, Balloux F (August 2006). "A geographically explicit genetic model of worldwide human-settlement history". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 79 (2): 230–7. doi:10.1086/505436. PMC 1559480. PMID 16826514. "Currently available genetic and archaeological evidence is supportive of a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa. However, this is where the consensus on human settlement history ends, and considerable uncertainty clouds any more detailed aspect of human colonization history."

6. "This week in Science: Out of Africa Revisited". Science 308 (5724): 921. 2005-05-13

7. Stringer C (June 2003). "Human evolution: Out of Ethiopia". Nature 423 (6941): 692–3, 695.

8. Johanson D. "Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?". ActionBioscience. American Institute of Biological Sciences.

9. "Modern Humans – Single Origin (Out of Africa) vs Multiregional".

That claim is disputed by recent genetic studies which conclude that the shared genetic ancestry of non-Africans and Neanderthal probably comes from a common ancestor rather than interbreeding.

Neanderthals did not interbreed with humans, scientists find

Even if hybridization did occur it was so minimal it would not have an evolutionary effect on any modern human population.

 

Your source is Wikipedia? Chris Stringer agrees with me (personal communication).

 

The sources on Wikipedia supporting the statement I pasted are reliable.

Do you have any responses you'd like to share?

 

Your source is the garbage PC site Wikpedia referencing Stringer from 2003 before DNA evidence came to light, Why not PM Stringer yourself.

 

I'll do that but in the meantime there are public statements made by Stringer in interviews which seem to support my position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/s...ise-of-modern-humans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

1. Humans originated in Africa, possibly in different parts of Africa but deep in Sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Humans became behaviorally modern in Africa.

You have expressed the opinion that humans evolved in North Africa and possibly outside of Africa in the Near East or Caucasus and also claimed that cross-breeding with Neanderthal led to the creation of modern Eurasians. By the way what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that ancient Eurasians were somehow different from modern Eurasians before cross-breeding with Neanderthal? Different in what ways?

I'm going to email Stringer and ask him what he thinks about human origins and human intelligence, specifically about the claims you have made in this thread.

 

Some Europeans who belong to Haplogroup E, which originated in Ethiopia or northern Sudan, have remote African ancestry and Hitler's haplogroup was determined to be E1b1b1 based on genetic tests carried out on his descendants. E-M35 and its Egyptian branch M78 emerged around 13,000 BCE, which eventually split into V22 and V13. E-V22 spread into the Middle East around 95,000 BCE and its brother group E-V13 started colonising the Balkans from 8,000 BCE to 7,000 BCE, from where this African haplogroup spread to the rest of Europe and reached Germany from 4,000 BCE to 3,500 BCE. Ancient Asians who belonged to haplogroups C and D are thought to have interbred with the Neanderthals in the period of 20,000 years when H. sapiens and the Neanderthals coexisted in North Asia and Siberia, which differentiated them from sub-Saharan Africans with Haplogroup E (i.e. lighter skin tone, larger cranial capacity).